It's very unlikely that the Bible is referring to a magical horse with one horn. There are a few possible explantions, two of which seem most likely to me.

One, a now extic species of rhino-like creatures called the Elasmotherium. It is thought they died out in prehistoric times, but there are many legends and eye witness accounts as late as the middle ages. They had longer legs, like that of a horse, and they most likely galloped like a horse. They were fast and strong, and the Bible normally references to show how such a strong creature pales in comparison to God.

Another thing to keep in mind is translation. The Hebrew word re'em was translated as Unicron in teh King James Version (i.e. thee, thou, hath, shalt and other now defunct vernacular), but more modern translations show it to mean Wild Ox. Not so magical...

From this point of view, they could have been talking about the Auroch, which had much larger horns than a regular ox and were used for battle by the Assyrians (who were the greatest threat the the Hebrews through a good chunk of the Old Testament). Some people have also claimed the could be the Arabian Oryx, though that doesn't seem to be as likely to me since these animals aren't as strong like most scripture implies.

Not so strange if you think about it actually. I have always wondered how much of the bible is actually supposed to be held for true, and how much is just stories to give an example and win the reader over to christianity. What if the original writer intended it as a fairytale book; you read it to children and they learn a value from each story, for example 'don't judge by looks' or 'do everything your parents say'. Then the purpose of the bible was still to learn people to believe in god but you should know that the creation story and the splitting of the red sea were just bollocks, which would have saved a lot of death and misery in the middle ages...
But then all of a sudden people started taking everything in the book for true and declared it sacred, and the writer facepalmed himself going 'oh no what have I done' (a scene fitting for Life of Brian I'd say... which says something about the stupidity of the early christians and the brilliance of Monty Python... If I'd be correct that is).

Anyway I often use unicorns as an example when asked about my religious views. I say; You can't prove god does not exist, but also can't prove that god does not exist. You can't prove unicorns exist, you also can't prove unicorns don't exist, do you believe in them? What this all comes down to is that true faith, is the freedom to choose truth. So it can't be tought by parents; you have to decide on that for yourself, and what you choose to believe is your truth. Which makes it perfectly fine to believe in unicorns, and so it doesn't do any damage to the credibility of the bible...

Yeah I think I might have sidetracked a little bit there... nevermind...

It's very unlikely that the Bible is referring to a magical horse with one horn. There are a few possible explantions, two of which seem most likely to me.

One, a now extic species of rhino-like creatures called the Elasmotherium. It is thought they died out in prehistoric times, but there are many legends and eye witness accounts as late as the middle ages. They had longer legs, like that of a horse, and they most likely galloped like a horse. They were fast and strong, and the Bible normally references to show how such a strong creature pales in comparison to God.

Another thing to keep in mind is translation. The Hebrew word re'em was translated as Unicron in teh King James Version (i.e. thee, thou, hath, shalt and other now defunct vernacular), but more modern translations show it to mean Wild Ox. Not so magical...

From this point of view, they could have been talking about the Auroch, which had much larger horns than a regular ox and were used for battle by the Assyrians (who were the greatest threat the the Hebrews through a good chunk of the Old Testament). Some people have also claimed the could be the Arabian Oryx, though that doesn't seem to be as likely to me since these animals aren't as strong like most scripture implies.

There's your history/linguistics lesson for the day

Yea I think the Unicorn they refere to is the picture above. Then again its hard to tell.